Rajasthan Court August 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohd. Mohtram Farooqui
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR132(Raj)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order of the Tribunal dated September 29, 2000. The cash amounting to Rs. 5,92,340 was seized by the police thana, Sikar, from the appellant on April 8, 1992. A panchnama was drawn by the Income-tax Department on April 9, 1992, and the said cash was requisitioned and taken into possession. Consequent to the seizure, the statement of the appellant was recorded by the Deputy Director of Investigation, Jaipur, wherein the assessee has stated that the cash belongs to his brother, brother-in-law and some cash belonging to him. The assessee could not give details how much amount belongs to his brother, how much amount belongs to his brother-in-law and how much amount belongs to him. On April 9, 1992, the assessee has surrendered the said cash of Rs. 5,92,340 for inclusion in his income for the assessment year 1993-94. The return of income was filed on April 26, 1993, declaring the income of Rs. 6,09,620. This includes the seized cash of Rs. 5,9...
Maya Devi and anr. Vs. Hari Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BLJR2500; 2002(5)WLC336
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed by the plaintiff-petitioners against the order dated 16.11.2000 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bharatpur in Civil Suit No. 34/1990. Under this order the learned trial Court has grant-id the application filed by the defendant/non-petitioner under Order IX, Rule 7, C.P.C. Parties herein after referred as the plaintiff and defendant.2. The facts of thein brief are that the suit for permanent injunction was filed by late Laxman Singh, predecessor-in-title of the petitioners against the defendant/ non-petitioner.3. The suit was fixed for plaintiffs evidence on 10.5.1999. As on that date both the parties nor their Counsel were present, the suit was dismissed in default. The application filed by the plaintiff under Order IX of the C.P.C. was granted and the suit was ordered to be restored to its original number.4. It is not in dispute that the notices with copy of this application of the plaintiff was sent ...
Cit Vs. Ramawatar Rajkumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN41(Raj)
ORDEROn an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding the sales-tax liability should not be disallowed under section 43B, even if it is paid after the accounting year of the assessee but within the time allowed under the relevant Sales Tax Law ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm. It had collected sales-tax but an amount of Rs. 1,80,045 remained unpaid by the end of the accounting year. The Income Tax Officer had disallowed the amount invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also confirmed the view taken by the Income Tax Officer. In the appeal filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has followed the decisions in the cases of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India (1991) 189 ITR 81, Sanghi Motors v. Union of India (19...
Deen Dayal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1006; 2003(1)WLC328; 2003(1)WLN362
ORDERA.C. Goyal, J.1. The facts in brief giving rise to this S.B. Criminal Revision are that on 4-8-1999 Sub-Divisional Officer Nawalgarh, District, Jhunjhunu seized nine cylinders on the ground that they were being transported to the village Jhanjhar through a camel cart. The owner of the Camel Cart was Sh. Megharam who was having no valid permission from M/s. Chokhani Gas Agency for transportation of the cylinders. The complaint by the Sub-Divisional Officer was filed under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act. 1955 (in short the Act, 1955) before District Collector, Jhunjhunu on account of violation of Sub-clauses (2) and (4) of Clause (3) of Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 1993 (in short the order '1993') with a prayer of confiscation of the cylinders.2. The Collector, Jhunjhunu issued show cause notice to Sh. Megharam under Section 6-B of the Act, 1955. Sh. Megharam as well as nine petitioners before this Court submitted their reply that th...
Cit Vs. Gem Plastic (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN40(Raj)
ORDEROn an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that no disallowance was to be made under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of outstanding liabilities of ESI, PF and Rajasthan sales-tax (including surcharge) of Rs. 49,407 as the said liability had been discharged by the assessee within the time prescribed under the relevant Acts but not during the relevant accounting period ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company which is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of rigid P.V.C. pipes. During the course of the assessment, the assessing officer had noticed that the assessee had not made the payment of Rs. 49,407 relating to the ESI, RST and surcharge on RST within the period of the accounting year, and, therefore, he disallowed...
Cit Vs. Mohd. Mohtram Farooqui
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)434
By the CourtThis appeal is directed against the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 29-9-2000. The cash amounting to Rs. 5,92,340 was seized by Police Thana, Sikar, from the appellant on 8-4-1992. A Panchnama was drawn by the Income Tax Department on 9-4-1992, and the said cash was requisitioned and taken in possession. Consequent to the seizure, the statement of the appellant was recorded by the Deputy Director of Investigation, Jaipur, wherein the assessee has stated that the cash belongs to his brother, brother-in-law and some cash belonging to him. The assessee could not give details how much amount belongs to this brother, how much amount belongs to his brother-in-law and how much amount belongs to him. On 9-4-1992, the assessee has surrendered the said cash of Rs. 5,92,340 for inclusion in his income for assessment year 1993-94. The return of income was filed on 26-4-1993, declaring the income of Rs. 6,09,620. This includes the seized cash of Rs. 5,92,340. The assessment was com...
Sita Ram Agarwal Vs. Smt. Prem Kanta Agarwal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC224; 2003(3)WLN497
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the revision petition and the record of the suit that out of this petition arises.2. The plaintiff respondent filed suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of the rent against the defendant petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 16.12.1991. The eviction of the defendant petitioner is claimed on the ground of default in payment of rent and reasonable and bonafide necessity of the suit premises.3. The written statements in the suit is filed on 31.10.1992. Issues are framed on 1.11.1996.4. The case proceeded for the evidence of plaintiff respondent. On 21.8.1998, the plaintiff has completed his evidence and close the same. As none was present for the defendant petitioner, the Court has ordered to proceed ex-parte against him. The suit was fixed for final arguments on 18.9.1998.5. On 18.9.1998 neither the defendant nor his counsel was present. The learned trial Court heard the...
Pappu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1230; 2002(5)WLC22
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 2.7.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 17.3.2001 (Annex.P/4) passed by, the respondents by which the petitioner was refused appointment on compassionate ground on the death of his father, be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The father of the petitioner late Shri Gyarasa Ram (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was permanent employee of the respondent-Department. The deceased was appointed on the post of Sweeper on 9.8.1974 and was made permanent on that post vide order dated 1.7.1978. The services of the deceased were ordered to be terminated vide order dated 4.1.1994 and his earlier services were forfeited...
Deep Enterprise Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: [2003]262ITR174(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the firm was not a genuine one on the strength of the statement made by the lady partner ?'2. The assessee-firm was formed by means of partnership deed dated July 21, 1980, and the shares of the partners, the ratio of profits and losses of the partners have been shown in the partnership deed. The assessee had moved an application for registration of the firm. The Income-tax Officer examined one of the lady partners of the firm, namely, Smt. Meena Ramchand. After examining Smt. Meena Ramchand, the Income-tax Officer was of the view that the firm is not a genuine one and rejected the application moved for the registration of the firm.3. In an appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Jaipur, the Appellate Assistant Commissi...
A.R. Ghosh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC792; 2002(4)WLN706
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner seeks direction in the name of respondents to refund the amount Rs. 10,000/- along with the interest and to include the service period from January 1, 1988 to September 30, 1988 in his service period while assessing the pension payable to the petitioner and consequent arrears arising out of the same. The petitioner has also prayed to allow the interest on the amount of gratuity, commuted value of pension and arrears of pension for the period from October 1, 1988 to January 1, 1995, as the same has been paid by a delay of more than six years.2. The contractual facts depicts that the petitioner ought to have been retired on December 31, 1987 by he was not superannuated on that date and he was allowed to continue in service till September 30, 1988. Since the period of service w.e.f. January 1, 1988 till September 30, 1988 was not counted for the purpose of pension and the deduction of Rs. 10,000/- was made, the petitioner approached the respondents s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »